waysider

Thanks, Raf. Your point is well taken.

The original question has been answered over and over and over again. The answer is not yes/no, black/white, night/day, on/off. Read between the lines. If it's a site where threads stay on topic you seek, you may want to check out reddit. Nothing there ever goes off topic for at least the first 4 or 5 posts.

The focal point of L.E.A.D. was to prove, not only that the law of believing was true, but to demonstrate that you knew how to operate it. Believe for rides to get there. Believe to get there on time. Believe to get there safely. Believe to come back with the same amount of money you left with.... and so on. The Way knew there were serious dangers involved with the program. Women were raped, people were robbed, people suffered debilitating frostbite and other life changing injuries, people died. Did they cancel it or make adjustments to make it safer? Nope. If you don't succeed, it's your own fault for not "believing". How convenient. It's probably about time to take a fresh look at THIS old thread.

No, we don't know what was going through his mind at that very moment. What we do know is that he counted on the bogus law of believing to keep him safe or he wouldn't have been hitching in the first place. Is it painful to rehash these memories? Yes, it is. There are plenty more where that came from regarding the L.E.A.D. experience and many other ventures undertaken by The Way. Part of what we do here is bring those memories out from under the carpet where they were swept and kept for much too long. Sorry I got the name wrong.

Yeah, like the guy (Dan B.?) who thought the law of believing would keep him safe as he hitchhiked to L.E.A.D. Unfortunately, when he stepped in front of a moving semi, as he attempted to cross the road, the situation became much too "real".

And, there's the rabbit hole. I'm not talking about a philosophical reality or a meta physical reality. I'm talking about things that simply exist. For example, a spoon is a spoon is a spoon. My perception or attitude toward it does not change it's physical presence. You can't bend a spoon with your thoughts alone, nor can you guarantee your child will die in a horrific accident because you had fearful thoughts. That's the reality of the physical world we live in, regardless of my perception or philosophical take on the matter.

Not much different than what Wierwille did. Instead of using scripture to give it a perceived credibility, they are invoking the name of science and philosophy. It's an appeal to authority, a devise that is used quite frequently when flawed logic is being presented.

I kept seeing a sign that said "Get Out Now!". I just ignored it, though, because I thought it said "Get Out House!" and, well, I've always had access to a functioning bathroom so I thought it was meant for someone else.

Negative thinking and stress can have a detrimental effect on your physical health. Or, at least, there have been studies that seem to draw that conclusion. Thinking positively about a situation can drive you to take action you might not otherwise take, thus eliciting a desired outcome. Aside from that sort of thing, there is no inherent power in your thoughts that can change things in the physical world around you. You can't think things into or out of existence or change situations by focusing your thoughts on the end result you would like to see. The "red drapes" story was a load of bunk, as was the story of the mother who "believed" her son would be killed by the car. This stuff doesn't have its foundation in anything Biblical. It's merely a twist on the New Age Thinking that was so popular in the 1950's. Wierwille cherry picked some scriptures to fit with it in an effort to make it look more credible..... "Well, you know, it says so in the Bible and I didn't write the book!".

Care to explain?

If you can get others to accept the viewpoint that, without relinquishing a portion of their income, bad things will happen, that gives you great control over them and, ultimately, their money. A steady flow of ABS, in my opinion, was the real heart of the scam.

This new perception of reality hits you like a ton on bricks when you finally realize the law of believing was a wagon load of horse manure and you've been blindly trusting an illusion for longer than you care to admit.

"It's Christ in Shoe!"

"He was a mean man."........Dotsie

In the beginning there were hot lumps........

I've noticed that when people intentionally drive a thread off-topic, it doesn't only change the subject being discussed, it also, usually, results in meta-discussion. It gets easier to spot after a while. Tangents can be a good thing if they are being presented genuinely.

That makes waterboarding sound like a nice alternative.

I can't say it was the first hit but a variation of that happened to me, also. I got on-line, looking for a replacement of my PFAL book and stumbled into this place. Probably the best "wrong turn" I ever took.

Definitely a classic!

I don't mind when discussions go off-topic. These are discussions. That's how discussions work. They go in and out of focus. What grinds my gears, though, is when people DELIBERATELY drive them off-topic. Usually, it's to stop people from saying anything critical of VPW (praise be his name.) or The Way. Oh, and welcome to our little corner of insanity. Bwaahaha!

"TWI tended to oversimplify certain things especially when it came to matters of the mind. One of my favorite Sunday Night Teaching Tapes used to be Carnal versus Spiritual – on it vp puts forth an amazing claim - countries without Christ do not invent – and he basically threw critical and creative thinking out the window suggesting inventions or any advancement of science came by revelation to a believer. (i am pleased to report that I have since kissed that stupidity goodbye a long time ago)." I don't recall that specific teaching. However, I do recall hearing that inventions and major advancements/developments can only come from the spirit realm. (Might have been in the A.C.... Too long ago to remember where, exactly) I'm continually amazed at how naive and gullible I must have been.

Maybe it didn't. :o

It wasn't "advanced" and it wasn't a "class". It was just 2 weeks of isolated indoctrination. (and W.O.W. Burgers )

Who knows what they really have? We only know what they are willing to admit to.

Here's the situation as I see it. One school of thought says that God can't give special gifts to individuals because it would show favoritism, violating His "no respecter of persons" rule. Another school of thought says it doesn't violate the rules because the gifts aren't given to the individual but, rather, to the church, as it is the church on a whole that potentially benefits. Defining them individually becomes a moot point when we become aware that confirming their very existence is prerequisite. So, in essence, we must first show that the concept of gift ministries is valid and based on a correct understanding of related scripture.